Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
. that permission was revoked by the obama administration even that was granted by the bush administration previously. everybody wants to get sources of energy in their states for not only to be able to get the jobs of getting it out, but attract criminal and manufacturing companies with low prices. so this is the choice we will have before us and to meet sees clearly the the way to go. i'd like to thank all of you for listening and i'd be very happy to take any questions. [applause] >> thanks, dana. if i could just start off with one question. among the natural gas reserves are natural gas reserves in the state, upstate new york. if by some fluke you had governor cuomo regarding potential for hater fracturing in the decision he is facing, what might you say to him? >> i would certainly say to look at the example of pennsylvania, which has created many, many jobs and is doing well and that job and they have an experienced environmental problems. it seems obvious that haida refracting is the way to go and governor cuomo is free to set whatever regulations he wants around that to ensure the
to the u.s. in a somewhat perplexed fashion. .. >> i'll give real credit to the obama administration. they been very good on investment. president obama was the first democrat in 30 years without an open investments. why? because foreign direct investment to the u.s. creates jobs that are disproportionately export oriented, disproportionately manufacturing oriented, and our 50% more likely to be unionized. this is capital we should be fighting for. i think we need to approach in the second obama term with the second -- same degree with confidence going to the point michael me. i think the world agree to engage with us. angela merkel proposed the free trade agreement in her speech issue. i think we should pick up on that and go for it. there's a trans-pacific partnership being negotiated out in asia, chinese are not part of the negotiation but they follow it very, very closely. let's just proceed with confidence because i think people want us to. >> you mentioned china, thank goodness. can't have a discussion with out china. jonathan and i were in china this year. everywhere we went j
a lot of these discussions have been about how the republicans rolled back the obama administration, making we can then ultimately overtaken and how they maintain that power once they have it. i mean, cloaked in the argument of what is good for america, but there is not allow a policy prescription in there. >> thank you. >> this event took place at the seventeenth annual texas book festival in austin, texas. for more information visit texasbookfestival.org. >> tell us when you think of your programming this weekend. comment on our facebook call or send us an e-mail. nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2. >> next, chrystia freeland talked about a rise of the superrich, the.-- the top 0.one% of the population and the impact they have in the world. this is hosted by politics and prose bookstore in washington d.c. and it is about an hour. [applause] >> thanks a lot. sorry to keep everyone waiting. i will say a few things about what is in the book. as i have been doing some interviews with my book, a favored way of interviewers in the conversation is to save the rich have always been
. president obama, secretary clinton others in the administration have consistently and forcibly called on other nations to end these practices, and this will continue. each of these threats, unfortunately, will continue. they will remain part of the international landscape for some time to come. the upcoming wcit conference won't be the last international setting in which these issues arise. and all of us in the u.s. government, my colleagues at the state and departments who need to continue to work on a coordinated ongoing strategy, we will need to continue to think critically about trade to aid, updating our strategy to meet this additional moment. we have a powerful story to tell global economy story about the ways that a growing internet globally can increase economic growth and opportunity worldwide, and about the link between the growth and principles of openness, freedom, competition and private markets. one of the amazing things about this story is that is not theoretical. after two decades of global and internet growth driven by adheres to these pencils. and so in this context
give real credit to the obama administration. they have been very good on investments. president obama was the first democrat in 30 years to put out an open investment statement. why? because foreign direct investment in the u.s. creates jobs disporing portion -- disproportioned manufacturing oriented and 50% likely to be unionized. this is capital we should be fighting for. ic we need to a-- i think we need to approach trade in the second obama term with the same degree of confidence to the point michael made. the world is ready to engage with us. they proposalled -- proposed a free trade agreement. pick up on that and go with it. there's a partnership negotiated out in asia, chinese, and now part of the negotiation, but they follow it very, very closely. let's just proceed with confidence because i think people want us to succeed. >> guys, out of the way of conversation, but you mentioned china, thank goodness. john alter, up here earlier, we were in china, and everywhere we went, john would doggedly hound the chinese with what are you going to do if mitt romney wins and on day one,
based on open investment policy. i will give credit to the obama administration. they have been very good on investment. president obama was the first democrat in 30 years to put out an open invest a statement? why? because foreign direct investment creates jobs that are disproportionately export-oriented, disproportionately manufacturing oriented, and are 50 percent more likely to be unionized. this is capital we should be fighting for. we need to approach trade in the second among the term with that same degree of confidence going to the point that michael made. i think the world is ready to engage. the german chancellor proposed a trans-atlantic free trade agreement. at degrees to pick up on that the bill fourth. the trans-pacific partnership negotiated out in asia. the chinese followed closely. let's just proceed with confidence because i think people want us to succeed. >> of get out of the way of the conversation, but you mentioned china. jonathan, he and i were in china. everywhere we went jonathan doggedly would hound that chinese. what are you going to do it mitt romney wins
three years ago the obama administration -- you mentioned this, jim -- suggested a swap of the trr, the the tehran research reactor fuel, in exchange for stopping enrichment. so why didn't that work? so perspectives from the panelists on is it necessary to shut down fordo, and why didn't the 20% fuel swap deal work before? and, i guess, why -- how do we make it work this time? >> brazil has another proposal which i think was a very constructive proposal. it has only one fault, and we come back to diplomacy, its timing was disastrous because it came the day or day before when u.s. at last got china and russia to enforce tough sanctions on -- so i think in washington what are these guys doing? they're sabotaging our successful sanctions policy, and this terrible, you know, difficult partners we have, china, russia, are onboard. and then they come up with something which, you know, makes the whole thing to capsize. so, you know, the turks and brazil got, you know, politely to withdraw, politely. >> so the timing wasn't right before. >> oh, i think it was a very interesting proposal. i
decade i see the debt run up under the bush administration is a comparable amount under the obama administration. this seems to me to be a legacy of an extraordinary amount of. [inaudible] and yet we have a lot of economic problems and now our sovereign debt is roughly around gdp and this is the point in which at least in europe, investors have begun questioning it so i am curious in what way future funding would be posed as a solution to problems that the past was not and how can it be financed? >> sorry, i don't buy the premise first of all. [applause] look, we had a stimulus bill, which was about $800 billion. that is a very small part of the debt we have and none of the results of an economic stimulus so where's this coming from? the rest of it is, we have a large amount of debt or a large amount of -- we ran a deficit even during the good years which people like myself don't think was a good idea. why? because we first wanted to give tax cuts to langsam individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do is pump grinding and then we had a collapse of revenu
administration, a roughly comparable amount under the obama administration. this 10 dribble seems seems to a leg say leg say -- and -- this is the point at which, at least in europe, investors have begun to question the capacity of the country to repay the debt. so i'm curious in what way future funding would be -- would be posted as a solution to problems that the pacifism past -- past pump fining was not and how can it be financed. >> i don't buy the premise, first of all. look, we had a stimulus bill which was about 800 billion. that a very small part of the debt we have. none of it was a result of the economic stimulus. so where is this coming from? the rest of it is we have large amount of debt that was -- a large opt -- we ran deficits even during good years, which even people like myself don't think is a good idea. why? because george bush wanted to give tax cuts to high income individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do with pump priming. the enwe had a collapse of revenue that took place after 2007, which is the result of a severe downturn and financial crisis
transmitting this treaty, the obama administration conducted an exhaust i have comparison of the treaty's requirements to current united states law. here's what they found: the united states does not need to pass any new laws or regulations in order to fully meet the terms of the treaty. the fact that we've already met our exceed the treaty' treaty's requirements is a testament to our nation's commitment to equality for the disabled. but ther there are still importt reasons for ratification. the veterans all over the united states travel all over the world obvious with their families. raratifying this treaty will hep move forward the day where wherever they travel they will be treated with the kind of respect that every person would expect to have in traveling around the world. ratifying this treaty will also give the united states a seat at an international table that we currently can't okay pievment the united states can sit at the table on disability rights worldwide and provide guidance and expertise based on our experience and leadership. it just stands out like a sore thumb that o
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10